What do you mean by "without an issue"? Right now, I'm pretty sure the upgrade process works wells whatever option for keeping existing content you choose. So could you please tell us whether you were able to keep you previously installed programs without any unnecessary fiddling or issues?

I upgraded my ThinkPad from Windows 7 Home Premium to Windows 8 Pro as well. The upgrade advisor told me to uninstall a few programs prior to the upgrad. I also ended up removing or reinstalling a handful of Lenovo-provided software after the upgrade to fix some issues. Active Protection System was causing a BSOD on resuming from sleep and ExpressCache had to be re-installed in order for the SSD cache to start working again.

What do you mean by "without an issue"? Right now, I'm pretty sure the upgrade process works wells whatever option for keeping existing content you choose. So could you please tell us whether you were able to keep you previously installed programs without any unnecessary fiddling or issues?

I fired up outlook and steam after upgrading and they both ran fine. The only obvious differences are the start screen and the task manager for me. Also I had to verify my L4D2 install before it would work and Punkbuster shit itself.

Edit: Oh and that stupid fucking Razer Synapse thing I accidentally installed to get drivers for my Blackwidow crashes every time I even fucking look at it.

So what's the story on downgrade rights? Can we downgrade if we buy the $40 online upgrade offer? My dad has a laptop with Vista on it, and I'm thinking about nudging him to take advantage of the online upgrade, but if he's not ready for the new Windows 8 paradigm it'd be nice to be able to fall back to Windows 7.

So what's the story on downgrade rights? Can we downgrade if we buy the $40 online upgrade offer? My dad has a laptop with Vista on it, and I'm thinking about nudging him to take advantage of the online upgrade, but if he's not ready for the new Windows 8 paradigm it'd be nice to be able to fall back to Windows 7.

You want to buy an upgrade license for Vista to go to 8 and be allowed to fall back to 7 if you don't like it?

So what's the story on downgrade rights? Can we downgrade if we buy the $40 online upgrade offer? My dad has a laptop with Vista on it, and I'm thinking about nudging him to take advantage of the online upgrade, but if he's not ready for the new Windows 8 paradigm it'd be nice to be able to fall back to Windows 7.

No. The upgrade media does not give you Windows7 downgrade rights. If it did of course, there would be no point in selling Windows7 as the Win8 upgrade is significantly cheaper.

From what I understand, you only get downgrade rights with Windows 8 Pro shipped with a new system. Not even the System Builder version (basically the old OEM version you could purchase separately) offers downgrade rights.

So what's the story on downgrade rights? Can we downgrade if we buy the $40 online upgrade offer? My dad has a laptop with Vista on it, and I'm thinking about nudging him to take advantage of the online upgrade, but if he's not ready for the new Windows 8 paradigm it'd be nice to be able to fall back to Windows 7.

You want to buy an upgrade license for Vista to go to 8 and be allowed to fall back to 7 if you don't like it?

That's what I was asking. Though it's not a question if I like it or not. I'm already running 7 and if I upgrade (which I probably will) I'll know what I'm getting myself into, having already tried out the Customer Preview in a VM. My dad is another issue entirely, however, having looked at the Start8 software linked earlier in the thread, it seems to alleviate most of my worries about the stuff he might not be willing to adjust to, for a very reasonable price. So, barring any other roadblocks, I'll prompt him to have a go with the upgrade this weekend. Thanks to TWM for clearing up the downgrade rights for me.

So tell me something, how is a "weak ecosystem" a valid point of criticism, considering the new platform/API, that's only been available for a short time? I find it ridiculous that Win8 gets criticized because it doesn't come with a 100000 apps from the get-go. Nevermind that 98% of these would be stupid shit to begin with.

Sorry to be a bother, but does anyone have any good information on the storage spaces question I asked on the last page?

Storage Spaces isn't as brainlessley flexible as WHS v1, but it's close. I am in the middle of that debate with myself now.

I'm also actually looking at upgrading to Server 2012 so I can use Storage Spaces. My RAID5 controller is getting long in the tooth, and slow. Replacing it is fairly expensive, and I'm not sure the benefits are really worth it.

Does anyone have any benchmarks on how performance on parity and mirrored volumes perform?

One thing I think is a bit weird is the provisioning concept. You can set a storage space to 10TB and put 2 1TB drives in it. What's the point of this? You can't actually use more than 2TB of space before it starts notifying you that you're running out of space. Which is also what happens in a normal setup when you run out of space. Why doesn't it just show the available space, and let you add drives which then expands the storage space accordingly - like most RAID controllers do now.

Is there any way of actually knowing how much space is actually available outside the Storage Spaces screen? It bothers me on a fundamental level not knowing how much space is actually free, and just being showed a fantasy number that I made up.

Is the hardware acceleration in IE10 any different than IE9's in Win7? Direct2D's font smoothing makes certain fonts look different compared to Firefox/Chrome (Arial 10, for example- noticeable on these forums), is that still the case in Win8?

This was one of the stupid changes. It was originally in the menu that appears when you click your username. I thought that was a perfectly good place to put it.

Thanks. I agree, stupid change. Really not liking how hard it is to navigate. IE from the start menu is virtually useless to me. The browser bar disappears and the only way I can get it to come back is to right click on the screen. This may be because I'm in Parallels or something but still annoying.

Thanks. I agree, stupid change. Really not liking how hard it is to navigate. IE from the start menu is virtually useless to me. The browser bar disappears and the only way I can get it to come back is to right click on the screen. This may be because I'm in Parallels or something but still annoying.

Metro IE is supposed to be touch-oriented, and designed to maximize screen use and minimize extraneous chrome. you would be better served with the desktop IE, which you can put as a shortcut on your start screen, so you don't keep using metro IE.

One thing I think is a bit weird is the provisioning concept. You can set a storage space to 10TB and put 2 1TB drives in it. What's the point of this? You can't actually use more than 2TB of space before it starts notifying you that you're running out of space. Which is also what happens in a normal setup when you run out of space. Why doesn't it just show the available space, and let you add drives which then expands the storage space accordingly - like most RAID controllers do now.

That has been my primary question as well. From a usability standpoint it seems like it would only confuse people, and I don't see the logic in it at all. It appears to be a pretty fundamental part of how the system works, and when I can't understand something like that I get really hesitant about using it. Why can't it just tell you how much space is available vs. how much is used?

One thing I think is a bit weird is the provisioning concept. You can set a storage space to 10TB and put 2 1TB drives in it. What's the point of this? You can't actually use more than 2TB of space before it starts notifying you that you're running out of space. Which is also what happens in a normal setup when you run out of space. Why doesn't it just show the available space, and let you add drives which then expands the storage space accordingly - like most RAID controllers do now.

That has been my primary question as well. From a usability standpoint it seems like it would only confuse people, and I don't see the logic in it at all. It appears to be a pretty fundamental part of how the system works, and when I can't understand something like that I get really hesitant about using it. Why can't it just tell you how much space is available vs. how much is used?

I'm not really sure what you guys are confused about. It's essentially the same concept of Thin Provisioning which Solaris and BSD variants (using ZFS) have been using for years. Performing that kind of provisioning prevents having to spend hours if not days waiting for the RAID to be rebuilt after you've added a new drive. Assuming the kind of RAID you've chosen even allows you to dynamically add more drives to it without having to rebuild the entire array from scratch.

It allows you set up an "Array" for 10TB even if all you have the money for right now is a 2TB drive. And ass you add more drives to it to reach the 10TB you had originally planned it does not need to spend anytime having to rebuild a fixed RAID Array. Complaining about Thin Provisioning is kind of silly.

So tell me something, how is a "weak ecosystem" a valid point of criticism, considering the new platform/API, that's only been available for a short time? I find it ridiculous that Win8 gets criticized because it doesn't come with a 100000 apps from the get-go. Nevermind that 98% of these would be stupid shit to begin with.

That's so because compared to the well established iOS, there is virtually no Metro apps. So if you want a tablet now and don't want to bet on a brand new and mostly unproved platform, it's certainly better to buy an iPad or some Google Nexus 7. You should be able to find most of the apps you'll ever want whether on the Metro side of the new Windows, you'll probably have to wait a few months until the major players start to catch-up and begin to consider the new platform. And that's assuming the platform ever manages to get a significant part of the market.

I perfectly agree that most of the apps you find on appstores are crap, and even on my Windows Phone, my favourite activity is to delete useless apps. If you're using Windows 8, you still have the so-called "desktop" apps, that is everything that currently runs on Windows 8.

Like Old Ben used to ethereally say, that's true from a certain point of view.

That being say, I'm still a bit reluctant to try Windows 8. I don't have a huge touchscreen, and for the time being, the only touchscreen I plan to have is my smartphone. That means mouse and keyboard only. Speaking of points of view, I sometimes have the feeling that I could use this Windows 8 by mostly considering the Start Screen as the brand shiny new Start Menu Evolved, while still mainly using the usual apps in the usual desktop. But I wonder whether that's realistic or if the touch emphasis is too much a drag on usability to allow using Windows 8 that way. What do you think?

It's essentially the same concept of Thin Provisioning which Solaris and BSD variants (using ZFS) have been using for years.

Expecting a standard Windows user to even know what Solaris or BSD are is a bit much, let alone knowing anything about how their file systems work.

With WHS I don't need to specify a maxiumum size at all-- I just plug in whatever drives I have, and I add more and/or replace them as needed. What we don't understand is the logic or the procedure behind creating the maximum size in the first place; why wouldn't I just choose eleven thousand petabytes? What is gained by choosing 10TB instead of 1600TB?

It's essentially the same concept of Thin Provisioning which Solaris and BSD variants (using ZFS) have been using for years.

Expecting a standard Windows user to even know what Solaris or BSD are is a bit much, let alone knowing anything about how their file systems work.

With WHS I don't need to specify a maxiumum size at all-- I just plug in whatever drives I have, and I add more and/or replace them as needed. What we don't understand is the logic or the procedure behind creating the maximum size in the first place; why wouldn't I just choose eleven thousand petabytes? What is gained by choosing 10TB instead of 1600TB?

Drive Extender in WHS was a hack job of the underlying NTFS. If you haven't had any issues with it so far, you should be quite happy because that's why it was removed from WHS 2011.

I can't tell you the technical reasons behind Thin Provisioning, I'm simply not well versed enough in file systems to tell you why. All I know is it's been used for years with ZFS and it's one of its most touted features - right up there with Dedup capabilities. So complaining about how Microsoft added essentially the same functionality that one of the most highly rated and extensible File Systems in existence has had for years, is a tad funny.

Thanks. I agree, stupid change. Really not liking how hard it is to navigate. IE from the start menu is virtually useless to me. The browser bar disappears and the only way I can get it to come back is to right click on the screen. This may be because I'm in Parallels or something but still annoying.

Metro IE is supposed to be touch-oriented, and designed to maximize screen use and minimize extraneous chrome. you would be better served with the desktop IE, which you can put as a shortcut on your start screen, so you don't keep using metro IE.

That's not the point. MS moved it because you don't shutdown or restart tablets. What they did makes no sense on a desktop (like many of the changes they made to the UI) but plenty if you follow the line of "Windows 8 is designed for tablets, regular desktop users can take what they get or leave".

That's not the point. MS moved it because you don't shutdown or restart tablets. What they did makes no sense on a desktop (like many of the changes they made to the UI) but plenty if you follow the line of "Windows 8 is designed for tablets, regular desktop users can take what they get or leave".

It makes just as much sense on a desktop or laptop as it does on a tablet. You don't need to shutdown the computer, just lock the screen or hit the physical power button and walk away. Hardware designed for Windows 8 connected standby will keep your apps, etc., updated while still using almost no power.

I haven't been keeping up with the different SKUs. Do any of the upgrades allow you to install on multiple PCs (assuming all PCs have valid Windows versions already)? What's the cheapest way to get Win8 on two machines, both of which have a license for a previous version?

I barely shutdown my desktop either. I set the power button on the tower to go to sleep. Works for me.

Even if you do shutdown your computers often (I do; my desktop in particular is very noisy and in my bedroom, so it never runs overnight, and I often have to leave it for days or weeks at a time, during which I of course turn it off), you're not going to be doing it frequently enough that this should be an annoyance, I should think. It's just a matter of learning a new interface convention, which is really hardly less convenient than the old one.

Sorry to be a bother, but does anyone have any good information on the storage spaces question I asked on the last page?

This article provides a pretty good overview. Read the FAQ at the bottom.

Storage Spaces works pretty much like Drive Extender, but it requires a bit more setup because it has more features. You can do it all from the GUI pretty easily. Drive Extender is similar to Mirrored in Storage Spaces. If you're familiar with Linux LVM, Storage Spaces is very similar.

Booting off a space is a major adventure, I would avoid this if at all possible.

Sorry to be a bother, but does anyone have any good information on the storage spaces question I asked on the last page?

This article provides a pretty good overview. Read the FAQ at the bottom.

Storage Spaces works pretty much like Drive Extender, but it requires a bit more setup because it has more features. You can do it all from the GUI pretty easily. Drive Extender is similar to Mirrored in Storage Spaces. If you're familiar with Linux LVM, Storage Spaces is very similar.

Booting off a space is a major adventure, I would avoid this if at all possible.

Sorry to be a bother, but does anyone have any good information on the storage spaces question I asked on the last page?

This article provides a pretty good overview. Read the FAQ at the bottom.

Storage Spaces works pretty much like Drive Extender, but it requires a bit more setup because it has more features. You can do it all from the GUI pretty easily. Drive Extender is similar to Mirrored in Storage Spaces. If you're familiar with Linux LVM, Storage Spaces is very similar.

Booting off a space is a major adventure, I would avoid this if at all possible.

Have there been any good independent reviews though? Has anyone actually tested the robustness of the system? There are a lot of feature overviews from January, but there seems to be a real lack of good articles from the last couple of months.

Great, Microsoft Store Germany managed to fuck up the Surface launch by not shipping their shit in a timely manner. I won't be testing multitouch or do usability tests this weekend.

Solidstate89 wrote:

I can't tell you the technical reasons behind Thin Provisioning, I'm simply not well versed enough in file systems to tell you why. All I know is it's been used for years with ZFS and it's one of its most touted features - right up there with Dedup capabilities. So complaining about how Microsoft added essentially the same functionality that one of the most highly rated and extensible File Systems in existence has had for years, is a tad funny.

ZFS volumes do not have a limit. Spaces in a storage pool actually have one. The filesystem hosted within needs to support expansion to deal with upping the provisioning limit. That is a process, while happening rarely, can go tits up.

Also, Storage Spaces does shit all for balancing data across drives. Not for performance (ZFS prioritizes disks to write to depending on average load), not for logistical reasons.

Especially later is annoying. When I changed over to Storage Spaces the first time, I broke up my existing RAID1, put one disk into the storage pool, copied by data over, added the second disk to start creating mirrors for sensitive data (I've excluded videos this time around, which made the brunt). This resulted in a 65%/15% balance between the two disks, when done arranging my stuff. Not surprising considering. However, when starting to write data to unresilient spaces, Storage Spaces didn't even once consider bringing the balance of the other disk up first, instead it spread the data 50/50, stealing available space from my mirrors.

Later I had to recreate a pool due to a failing disk, made it mirror all over the place, to avoid the same issue.

Drive Extender in WHS was a hack job of the underlying NTFS. If you haven't had any issues with it so far, you should be quite happy because that's why it was removed from WHS 2011.

Actually, according to Microsoft, Drive Extender was removed from Windows Home Server because it was incompatible with line of business applications on Windows Small Business Server and Microsoft wants their codebase consolidated to an extreme, even if it doesn't make any sense.

If anyone thinks Microsoft's logic in this area is sound, it makes sense that people have no problem with their 25" monitor being turned into an oversized phone.

Not that Microsoft really knew how Drive Extender worked in the first place, since their Drive Extender Whitepaper looks like it was written by someone who didn't really have a clue about how file systems, file shares, or Windows works.